Saturday, November 23, 2013

More Thoughts on Giving Alms to Homeless Beggars on the Street

Many
times such giving (money on the street) is enabling substance abuse. What is best to do is to
personally take the person out to eat and preach the gospel and
Catholicism. Then you know he or she is gettin' both physical and spiritual food.

Our
parish -- the priest -- used to tell us not to give to anyone who asks near the church door, for this reason. But the parish distributes food. So there
are various ways to assist those who may be squandering resources
irresponsibly and to fulfill our obligation to be charitable. In other words there are more choices than:

1) Give to anyone without question. 2) Don't give at all.

Those
ain't the only two choices. To care about the giving being most
"efficacious" and not squandered is part of charity, too: desiring the
best for the person: not that they do things that don't help their sad
situation.

Of
course you can give the money and not think anything else about it. No
one can call that "bad" in and of itself. But I think we can take it
further in order to assure that it is put to the best use: which is a
charitable thing, not uncharitable.

Homeless
shelters operate, of course, on a similar principle. They don't just
hand out money: the homeless go there: get a bed, roof over their heads,
warmth on a cold night, and food. Thus, nothing is possibly wasted in
that arrangement.

Just giving to
a guy with a cardboard sign on the side of the road: not so. We
wouldn't give someone drugs or a drink if they have those problems. So
we shouldn't give them money if there is a plausible likelihood that the
money will be traded for same. We can make sure that the person is
receiving good things rather than possibly bad ones. And again, that's
charity, not lack of same.

Someone asked: "playing devil's advocate here, where in the Gospels does Christ say to get verification before giving alms?"

That's
no disproof of anything I'm saying. We can and should use wisdom and
prudence in intelligently applying the principle of giving with a
cheerful heart and being our brother's keeper. The Bible teaches that we
give to those who have need: it doesn't spell
out in exhaustive detail how we go about that. As always in Scripture
(especially with Jesus) it goes back to our heart's disposition and attitude.
I'm not disagreeing with giving itself: only talking about the best way
to go about it.

So
I appeal back to my example: everything the homeless shelter does is
verified to be good, with no bad result from it, which is clearly not
the case (in whatever percentage) in handing out money to someone on the
street. Also, there are passages in the Bible having to do with wise
use of resources, such as the parable of the talents.

The
article about John Stossel's opinions doesn't indicate whether he advocates giving in other
ways than money on the street (perhaps he does). That's the difference
between his analysis and mine. I'm saying, "by all means give, but try
to make sure the resources are not abused in the enabling sense."

The
article seems to presuppose the false dichotomy I noted above: either
give cash to the beggar without question or don't give at
all. There are many other choices in addition to those two, to help
people in need (homeless shelters being one example of what I am
advocating).

Substance abuse is very prevalent among the homeless. See these three articles (one / two / three).

Obviously,
it's imperative, if we really want to help these people, to get them
into drug rehab, too. It's the equivalent of teaching a man to fish
rather than giving him a fish. We have to attack the root of the problem
(if it is substance abuse), rather than continually putting temporary
Band-Aids on it without resolving underlying root causes.

Someone else said: " if I were that poor fellow, down on his luck, I could probably use the occasional stiff drink."

If
not an alcoholic, sure. If an alcoholic, this is the worst thing for
the person. Many homeless have substance abuse problems, which is
precisely the point. Giving someone like that cash on the street is thus
often enabling behavior.

15 comments:

It's also worth noting, as one of my Facebook friends recently pointed out, that in some cases the "homeless beggars" are neither homeless nor poor. She said she personally witnessed such a "faker" hiding an expensive car, then going out to beg.

The authority of Scripture trumps the reasoning above. Jesus himself says, "Give to every one who begs from you (παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου); and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again (Lk 6:30).

St. John Chrysostom expounds:"Herein however we do not lightly err, when not only we give not to those who seek, but also blame them? Why (you say) does he not work, why is the idle man fed? Tell me, dost thou then possess by labour? but still if thou workest, dost thou work for this, that thou shouldest blame another? For a single loaf and coat dost thou call a man covetous? Thou givest nothing, make then no reproaches. Why dost thou neither take pity thyself, and dissuadest those who would? If we spend upon all indifferently, we shall always have compassion: for because Abraham entertains all, he also entertains angels. For if a man is a homicide and a robber, does he not, thinkest thou, deserve to have bread? Let us not then be severe censors of others, lest we too be strictly judged."

Exactly. I totally agree. Give! Give a lot! It's a command. How we give, however, opens up a wide range of possibilities. It's a fact that many homeless people abuse substances, so it's also a fact that cash we give them may go to that, in which case we are not helping them.

This being the case, we can take measures to avoid this waste, such as ones I suggested: literally taking them out to eat, or what homeless shelters do.

My argument really can't be overcome. The only way would be to say that I advocate not helping at all;. But that's not true. I'm saying, give, but give wisely. so that it has its full effect and blessing, and is not squandered.

Nor does my view entail false blame, as Chrysostom is talking about. It's acknowledging the reality that there is a lot of substance abuse (as well as some fake beggars too).

I agree with you in that there are different ways to give. The rhetorical effect, however, of what you have written is to make a distinction between certain types of beggars. Appearances can be deceiving. Why be anxious about what is done with one's resources? Are they not the Lord's? Scripture is very clear, when we give to those who cannot repay us, we store up treasure in heaven. When we are defrauded, we are not to ask it be restored because we have stored up treasure in heaven. The position is correct to give "to everyone" who asks, even should such a one step out of a luxury vehicle. If one is merciful to all, even to evildoers, one is most like our heavenly Father, who causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall upon the just and upon the unjust.

If a beggar says he is hungry, we take him to dinner and share Christian truth with him and show human kindness. hat's doing much MORE in charity than throwing him a ten dollar bill and going our merry way. We're giving him time, talking to him like a human being who has value and worth, and making absolutely sure the money goes for that which it was intended.

There is no adverse "rhetorical effect" in what I'm saying here. I'm taking it to a deeper level, just as Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount: going to the roots, thinking deeply about how to best help people and show forth the love of Christ.

How is "making absolutely sure" the same as "not anxious"? You are correct in that taking someone to dinner is better than simply giving someone money. It is, however, reality that in our society, people need money. Moreover, we abuse our own resources on useless even sinful matters on ourselves. I have known of Christians who offer food, and then if that is refused refrain from giving, as though food is a poor man's only need. Many homeless take public transit and have to purchase things not available at shelters. Moreover, if he buys a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of alcohol (or even a lottery ticket, as one beggar I used to know of) with our money, we should not lose sleep. We do not share in the sin of the beggar if he misuses our alms. Your words demonstrate subsidiarity, to be sure, but they must also be accompanied by solidarity. As Pope Benedict says in Caritas in Veritate, subsidiarity without solidarity results in "paternalistic" aid. Yes, take the man out to eat, but nonetheless hand him $10 (or as the Holy Spirit prompts you) if he refuses to accompany you to the restaurant.

I agree with you. No one wants to see their money misused. I understand your point completely, but my point is being altogether missed. God gives his resources to those who he knows will misuse them. It is most God-like for us to do likewise, and make no distinction between types of beggars. Otherwise, they will remember us as calculating or manipulative do-gooders, rather than those who truly loved them. If you really want to live the words of the Gospel, then truly "give to everyone who asks of you." If you refuse anyone based on the fact that they may use it for sin, would not God be justified in withholding his resources from us beggars who use his resources ungratefully and imprudently for vanity, overeating, immoderate entertainment, and other unnecessary pleasures?

The real point is that we are all unworthy beggars. Hidden in that drug addict or that alcoholic or that man who is simply down on his luck whom the almsgiver suspects of being a drug addict or alcoholic is Jesus Christ in disguise. Do not refuse him.

I'm not refusing him in the first place. I'm not missing anything. I'm fully applying the injunction, but using wisdom and prudence in doing so.

It ain't solidarity to enable sin or make a brother stumble. The charitable thing is to help him out of his sinful condition (if present) precisely so he can be fully a member of the community.

Proverbial-type language in Scripture is not to be taken absolutely literally. The point here is being willing to give and share from the heart without anxiety, without judging. Wise application of the giving isn't anxiety, it's just . . . wise!

Nor is it judging per se if it is known that a person has an alcoholic or drug problem. Love and charity dictate that we do all we can to help him out of that situation, for his own good. We don't do that by throwing him cash that will likely be exchanged for the thing that is his problem.

Then we feel great about ourselves and how giving we are, but it's not helping the person, which is the object of the giving.

You're interpreting the Bible here like many people do when it says "turn the other cheek." They take it absolutely, and some even conclude pacifism from that.

They forget that Jesus also told His disciples to buy a sword. And they forget that St. Paul certainly didn't apply that proverbial advice during his trial. He did all he could to defend himself, including identifying himself as a Pharisee and appealing to his Roman citizenship (whereas Jesus was mostly silent during His trial).

I've been working with the homeless for over a month now. They don't ask for much and I've not yet seen any abuse of what was given. I think that to worry what they use donations for is a needless angst until such a time as one knows for sure they are enabling some pathology. Until that time one should assume they are helping and do that to the best of their ability and gifts. I've found its much easier to give another person hope than one may think. It sometimes takes little more than an encouraging word an I dare say, my time spent with the homeless is more enriching to me than I ever would have expected. The Lord is only good.

We must live by:2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. ~ St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22.

They don't ask for much and I've not yet seen any abuse of what was given.

That's kinda the key issue, isn't it? Because it is not very much money, then the amount of damage they could do on the chance they abuse it will be limited.

But now consider giving $1000 dollars to a random homeless person an what happens? I think those us admonishing others against "needless angst" change our tune for the simple fact that the increased potential for abuse warrants more filtering because we are our brother's keeper. Not from a lack of hope or trust, but from a simple duty to prudence. It's your conscience that moves you to give, but that same conscience (rightly) starts going, "Whoa! We are getting into serious amounts now. Let's take a moment and put in some checks and balances so no one, not me, not the beggar, or anyone else gets hurt."

Thank you for posting the words of Chrysostom. I had heard this many years ago and today, as the issue once again came to mind, I was grateful to find them.For me, that is the wisdom that best explains the admonitions found in the Bible and by Christ himself. When I think about Matthew 25, I certainly hope that Christ does not judge me as harshly. This is the problem with scholasticism or legalism.

Maybe the beggar buys a hamburger with the money I give them, and maybe not, but I just give and leave the rest to God.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).